FOCUS

The Constituent Assembly drafted the
Constitution of India from 1946-1950. It sat for the first time on December 9,
1946, and in two years and 11 months, it met for 11 sessions spread over 165
days. On November 26, 1949, the Assembly adopted the Constitution, which came into
effect on January 26, 1950.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the chairman of the Assembly and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was
the chairman of the Drafting Committee. A majority of the Assembly’s
deliberations were debates on the Draft Constitution, which was presented for
discussion on November 4, 1948. Over the next year, Assembly members debated
each clause in detail and proposed amendments that were either adopted or
rejected by a majority vote.

The Assembly debated Article 1 of the Constitution on
November 15 and 17, 1948. During these debates, some Assembly members proposed
that the word ‘States’ be substituted with other words (see Factoid 2). Other members
argued that words which specify the political character and future of newly
independent India be included in Article 1 (see Factoid 5). The majority of
Assembly members, however, rejected the proposed changes and additions.

FACTOIDS

What does Article 1 of the Constitution of India say?

Article 1 says: “India,
that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The States and the territories
thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. The territory of India
shall comprise—the territories of the States; the Union territories specified
in the First Schedule; and such other territories as may be acquired.”

What were the proposed substitutes for the word ‘States’ in Article
1?

Assembly member H.V.
Kamath proposed that ‘Pradeshas’ be used instead of ‘States’ in order to avoid confusion, since
the word ‘States’ had been used with different meanings throughout the Draft Constitution.

Some members argued that the word ‘Provinces’ be used
because ‘States’ indicated imitation and was used in the Constitution of the
USA. They also felt that the word ‘States’ has a bad connotation because of its
association with the ‘Indian States’ during British rule.

Mahavir Tyagi argued that ‘States’ be replaced with ‘Republican
States’ and the phrase “the sovereignty of the Union shall reside in the whole
body of the people” be added to emphasise that sovereignty resided with everyone
and not just the king, as it did during British times.

What were the arguments against the substitution of the word
‘States’?

Some members argued that
the word ‘Pradeshas’ was a Hindi translation of the word ‘States’, and since
the Draft Constitution was in English, the Assembly should use ‘States’. Notably,
Assembly member (and the first Indian prime minister)Jawaharlal
Nehru argued against the use of ‘Pradeshas’, and said that ‘States’ was just what one defined it to be while ‘Pradesh’
was a new term and therefore open to multiple interpretations. Substitutes for other
parts of Article 1 were deemed unnecessary by the Assembly.

What were the inclusions proposed for Article 1?

Assembly member K.T. Shah proposed that the phrase “Secular,
Federal, Socialist Union of States” be added to Article 1 to delineate the
political character of India. However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued that the policy
of the state and how society should be organised – socially, economically – must
be decided by the people themselves, according to the time and circumstances,
and cannot be specified in the Constitution. Further, he said that the amendment
is unnecessary because there were other sections in the Constitution that covered
the principles of state policy.

Some members of the
Assembly proposed that a clause be added to Article 1, stating that 10 years
after the Constitution comes into force, member States of the Union of India should
be organised on a uniform basis, by groups of village panchayats that would function as democratic units. However, this
amendment was rejected.

K.T. Shah proposed that, in Article 1, after the word ‘States’,
the words ‘equal inter se’ be added to emphasise the political unity of States despite
the existing natural, social and political inequality among them. H.V. Kamath
and M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar argued that such equality between ‘States’ already
existed in certain parts of the Constitution (Part I of the First Schedule) and
that the States were represented in the Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament based
on their population.

Did the Constituent Assembly accept any of these amendments?

During the debates on
November 15 and 17, 1948, all the proposed amendments related to Article 1 were
rejected.